What Is Your Understanding Of A Feminist? Are You One?

[Ingenium]

Carleas:

I’m not feeling much inspiration to deal seriously with this thread; however, your participation seems sincere.

I’m uninterested in a brand of feminism that holds the ideal above and beyond valid scientific findings. It would just be a shadow game, adding more fuel to the ‘enemy’s’ fire, as it were. With that said, there’s a difference between the morality of the social and political imposition of gender (or any other) discrimination and empirical findings regarding biological similarities or differences between the sexes. Plain old vanilla information is no threat in and of itself and, in fact, it’s disinformation and ignorance that does us in, no?

…the problem I have with the “men are better at x, women are better at y” line is that, even if statistically true (i.e. on average, within the general population and over a large number of individuals the trend holds), the variation within each gender makes the finding practically useless.

That’s true, if you’re considering male curve versus female curve, the means may be different, but at any particular measurement there are always representatives of both genders. But the variance depends a lot on the tails of the distribution curve, populated by the fewest samples. Even when there’s only a small difference in the means of two distributions, the more extreme a score, the greater the disparity there will be in the two kinds of individuals having such a score. That is, the ratios get more extreme as you go farther out along the tail. This is not insignificant in the empirical sense, of course. But there’s a difference between denoting difference and inferring that denotation in a discrimatory manner, which you alluded to in your employment scenario. The problem is that you have some who over-emphasize these outer extremes to justify what are essentially social or political propositions.

In the workplace, the statistics are useless: since you’re dealing not with the general population but with a biased sample, a woman applying for a math-heavy position who has a comparable resume to that of a man is as likely as not to be a better candidate for the position. The statistics would only make you expect more male applicants to a specific position, or more men with the relevant experiences.

Interestingly, research has shown that candidates for such jobs who are stellar – the highest of the high – are not viewed differently in terms of gender. It’s when you get to the much larger, more average group of candidates that you see gender-based bias when it comes to perceived productivity, quality of experience, suitability as a colleague.

[aspacia]

[quote=“Ingenium”]

aspacia!

Uh-oh…you’d better watch out, somebody’s stepped up to label you an ‘angry woman talker’. Proceed with caution, as you have now been weakened, they’ve ferreted out your innate female foolishness; that is to say the word’s out that you’re incapable of containing those irrational and unpredictable female emotions that will be your undoing in this den of reasonable, rational and oh-so-secure males.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

Thanks guys, I needed a good cleansing laugh.

[quote]
Are you looking in the mirror?

@aspacia

That is, we need each other for balance.

Your point appears to be mine---- balance.

(Oh wait, was I supposed to stick to the ‘men are more intelligent and women are better socializers’ theories put forth by several of our esteemed fellow ILP’ers thus far? Sorry!)

Yes, right, “SORRY” is the correct word.

You’d think we’d get that and find a degree of equanimity and happiness in creating and celebrating balance, no?

Nope, there is balance with the right mate, an concept you have little inkling of.

On the surface, you might think that a particular engineering problem can only be solved by the particular skills (note that I didn’t write ‘superior’; that’s just what those with sexual bias reading this are concluding…) that men, statistically, tend to display more often.

Why might men have this propensity? Think about it!

But suppose that said task can be accomplished either by representing geometry or by representing individual landmarks. Girls tend to rely on the landmarks, and boys on the geometry. And both can solve it!

Again, think about it. What toys are boys and girls given? Also, my 6’2" son tends to rely on landmarks. Chuckle, currently, he is making more than me and my other half combined.

ut wait…my god, what a despicable, feminine take on things! Where’s that innate masculine drive to stand alone upon yonder hill, flag raised (so to speak), one foot placed before the other in the timeless symbol of leadership, ready into battle, drenched in noble cause, defender of the truth whatever the cost…

Then why so many male pacifists on this board, and in society in general?

[i]“…for look there, friend Sancho Panza, where thirty or more monstrous giants present themselves, all of whom I mean to engage in battle and slay…”

lousy analogy!

“Look, your worship,” said Sancho. “What we see there are not giants but windmills, and what seem to be their arms are the vanes that turned by the wind make the millstone go.”[/i] - de Cervantes

Don Quioxte-- again bad analogy and I do not understand your point. Are you claiming all men are dreaming idiots?? Men have always battled, been warriors?

In the end, balance is relative and, even more problematic, in constant flux. Its achievement can’t even be evaluated until after the fact, by which time you’ll be pretty assured that things have shifted some.

LOL, so you do not need a woman for balance?

IMO, what matters most is how power is defined and perceived and, ultimately, negotiated. It’s my experience that when a woman and a man with similar understanding along these lines meet up, then that’s great fortune for both. It’s rare, though. So if you got it, savor it. (sigh)

Yes, my significant male other and I are very balance. However, my first husband played the alpha male, power trip, and I divorced him and spent two year in court divorcing him as he did not want it.

You will reap what you sow.

[Ingenium]

@aspacia

Your point appears to be mine---- balance.

That’s because I’m pretty much in agreement. Well, at least in terms of balance of power and maturity and personalities in a good relationship.

Yes, right, “SORRY” is the correct word.

I think you misunderstood my meaning. See, back in the early days of the women’s movement, if you spoke out against male opinion or the male power structure or status quo, you were labelled an ‘angry, irrational, overly-emotional female’. And, see, some poster had called you angry and other male posters had referred to the ‘natural order’ and that women are less intelligent and more social…oh, never mind.

Sigh. It’s one of those deals that if I have to explain it, it doesn’t matter.

Nope, there is balance with the right mate, an concept you have little inkling of.

LOL, chill out, I wasn’t arguing with you. I agree, at least in terms of balance of power and maturity and personalities in a good relationship. It’s just not that common that two people maintain such balance over the life of it. Most women I know sacrifice and compromise more than they’d like to and will admit it…to another woman. I’ve never understood why, but have been told crap like, “well, it’s better than being alone” or “they’re all pretty much that way, so I might as well stick with the one I’ve already invested my time in.” I can only shake my head at that logic.

And heaven only knows what their mates are admitting to their male friends.

Why might men have this propensity? Think about it!

Uh, because we live in a culture where men have been encouraged in both overt and subtle ways to pursue it and girls have not?

Again, think about it. What toys are boys and girls given?

Boys get Erector sets and video games, girls get Easy-Bake ovens and Barbies. With lots of pink dresses and accessories. That was not my experience, although I did get a baby doll or two.

Also, my 6’2" son tends to rely on landmarks. Chuckle, currently, he is making more than me and my other half combined.

That’s good. Mine are not yet out of school, but I’m encouraging them to make lots of money just in case I need a loan when I get too old and feeble to work.

Then why so many male pacifists on this board, and in society in general?

I’m not convinced that there are that many on here, and virtually none in the truest sense of the word. I know some in real life, though.

Don Quioxte-- again bad analogy and I do not understand your point. Are you claiming all men are dreaming idiots?? Men have always battled, been warriors?

I don’t think you understood much of my post, actually. But no matter. I was actually supporting what you’d written, it just didn’t come through because I was also directing a bit of sarcasm at prior posts by some of the males.

(Damn. I KNEW I should’ve stayed away from a thread on feminism on a predominantly male site! But noooo…)

LOL, so you do not need a woman for balance?

Are you talking about society in general or me personally? If you mean me, then perhaps you can tell me, are you assuming that I’m a man or a lesbian? Just curious.

Yes, my significant male other and I are very balance. However, my first husband played the alpha male, power trip, and I divorced him and spent two year in court divorcing him as he did not want it.

Yikes, that sounds expensive! But no doubt worth it, lol.

[aspacia]

Damn, I can be the defensive bitch— sorry about my misunderstanding I have been slammed as a misanthrop many times by three males on this board. Chuckle, women making equal wages and burdens helps the household and eases the burden on both parties.

Friends???

Smiles,

aspacia

[felix_dakat]

Why hasn’t the Equal Rights Amendment been adopted? After all it was passed by Congress in 1971 and ratified by 35 state legislatures. Only three more states need ratify it for its adoption. Members of Congress have reintroduced the measure every year since its defeat. This year it has been renamed the Women’s Equality Amendment. Do you think that will help? The amendment simply states “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” What could possibly be wrong with that in an enlightened free country like the U.S.A.?

[aspacia]

@felix dakat

Why hasn’t the Equal Rights Amendment been adopted? After all it was passed by Congress in 1971 and ratified by 35 state legislatures. Only three more states need ratify it for its adoption. Members of Congress have reintroduced the measure every year since its defeat. This year it has been renamed the Women’s Equality Amendment. Do you think that will help? The amendment simply states “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” What could possibly be wrong with that in an enlightened free country like the U.S.A.?

It was defeated because it is redundant. Women are already protected under the Civil Liberties Act. The laws on the books simply need to be enforced.

aspacia

[felix_dakat]

@aspacia

@felix dakat

Why hasn’t the Equal Rights Amendment been adopted? After all it was passed by Congress in 1971 and ratified by 35 state legislatures. Only three more states need ratify it for its adoption. Members of Congress have reintroduced the measure every year since its defeat. This year it has been renamed the Women’s Equality Amendment. Do you think that will help? The amendment simply states “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” What could possibly be wrong with that in an enlightened free country like the U.S.A.?

It was defeated because it is redundant. Women are already protected under the Civil Liberties Act. The laws on the books simply need to be enforced.

aspacia

If you are referring to the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, it has never been interpreted to grant equal rights on the basis of sex in the same way that the Equal Rights Amendment would. Ratified in the 19th century, the 14th Amendment wasn’t applied to sex discrimination at all until 1971. Even so, the last major Supreme Court decision on sex discrimination, regarding admission of women to Virginia Military Institute demonstrated that males hold rights and females must prove that they hold them. Why is that a good thing? The Equal Rights Amendment would end that disparity and shift the burden of proof to the alleged discriminator.

[aspacia]

@felix dakat

@aspacia

@felix dakat

Why hasn’t the Equal Rights Amendment been adopted? After all it was passed by Congress in 1971 and ratified by 35 state legislatures. Only three more states need ratify it for its adoption. Members of Congress have reintroduced the measure every year since its defeat. This year it has been renamed the Women’s Equality Amendment. Do you think that will help? The amendment simply states “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” What could possibly be wrong with that in an enlightened free country like the U.S.A.?

It was defeated because it is redundant. Women are already protected under the Civil Liberties Act. The laws on the books simply need to be enforced.

aspacia

If you are referring to the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, it has never been interpreted to grant equal rights on the basis of sex in the same way that the Equal Rights Amendment would. Ratified in the 19th century, the 14th Amendment wasn’t applied to sex discrimination at all until 1971. Even so, the last major Supreme Court decision on sex discrimination, regarding admission of women to Virginia Military Institute demonstrated that males hold rights and females must prove that they hold them. Why is that a good thing? The Equal Rights Amendment would end that disparity and shift the burden of proof to the alleged discriminator.

Valid claims Felix! However, I was refering to the Civil Rights Act of the 60’s. In any place of employment, one must prove that they are able to adequately perform or excel in the job. This goes for most clerical, teaching, fireperson, policeperson, construction, nurses, doctors, etc. positions. These tests are often three or more hours in length, and some require three to eight years of undergraduate and graduate studies, and 150 hours or more additional training to remain current, and renew their professional licenses.

However, I do believe that eventually technology will take the gender or sex factor out of the equation.

Smiles,

aspacia

[Lollipop_King]

@Carleas

Sorry for the delayed response.

Satyr, why do you say that physical dominance and mental dominance are necessarily joined?

Did I say that?
If anything physical weakness makes mental compensation a matter of survival.

Wouldn’t that entail that humans are the strongest animal, or that whales are the smartest? Or that football players are the smartest people or that Stephen Hawking is among the strongest? I don’t see any reason to suspect that if men dominate physcially they must dominate mentally as well.

I’m saying they dominate, period, for whatever reasons.
That males show a stronger ability to abstract and to revolutionize human thought and art, points to a general characteristic.

How and why did they become the dominant sex? Through physical force. In early society, order was enforced by brute strength. Only the strongest member of a tribe or group could maintain power (it functions the same way in many pack animals today; when the leader’s strength lags, they lose control and they are challenged). As society budded under the control of the strongest, strength was valued primarily for long enough to cement a system where women, who did not evolve to hunt, were considered non-considerations. Leadership was initially defined as strength, and by the time strength was not the foremost consideration, leadership had already come to entail male-ness.

That only explains how they dominated not why they maintained this dominance.

[sirswedishmike]

@Satyr

@Carleas

Sorry for the delayed response.

Satyr, why do you say that physical dominance and mental dominance are necessarily joined?

Did I say that?
If anything physical weakness makes mental compensation a matter of survival.

Wouldn’t that entail that humans are the strongest animal, or that whales are the smartest? Or that football players are the smartest people or that Stephen Hawking is among the strongest? I don’t see any reason to suspect that if men dominate physcially they must dominate mentally as well.

I’m saying they dominate, period, for whatever reasons.
That males show a stronger ability to abstract and to revolutionize human thought and art, points to a general characteristic.

or has the right to revolutionize human thought etc only been open to males in the past b/c of lingering survival roles. As, technology changes, women are getting in on the game more and more, that is evident in the last 100 years, and it will probably continue to climb.

[Carleas]

Sorry, Satyr, I think I misunderstood you. You are just saying that physical difference is an indicator that there is likely mental difference as well, and I interpreted it to say that physical strength was an indicator of mental strength. Apologies. In that case, I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I don’t think there is necessarily a difference (there are numerous physical and mental qualities in which men and women are equals), nor do we know in which direction the scales are tilted (the playing field has not been equal).
I think Mike is on to something. Women have been rapidly gaining social influence since the industrial revolution, i.e. since the necessity of physical strength was significantly reduced as a requirement for productive labor. Perhaps men maintain dominence because not enough time has elapsed to allow women to prove themselves superior.

[Ingenium]

I have been slammed as a misanthrop many times by three males on this board.

This can be viewed as an accomplishment, as your comments apparently hit them somewhere where it stung a bit.

Friends???

Of course!

[aspacia]

@Ingenium

I have been slammed as a misanthrop many times by three males on this board.

This can be viewed as an accomplishment, as your comments apparently hit them somewhere where it stung a bit.

Friends???

Of course!

Thanks kiddo,

aspacia

[WillNZ]

I don’t know if i see it so much as empowering females, as disempowering males.

In a good way, though!

Men wield too much power for their own good. Hasn’t got us very far in the past in terms of world peace!

Why not try women at the fore?

=D> =D> =D>

Oh, let me add to that.

Women are GREAT at running the household.

Think of the world as a great big household.

Therefore,

Women would be PERFECT for running the world!

(just crackin’ a little joke there…)

[Impenitent]

the hand that rocks the cradle already rules the world

-Imp

[Gaiaguerrilla]

There is a lot of recent intellect toward feminism, and I’ve read some. I have much agreement with The War Against Women by Marylin French. But my position for a long time lacks a lot of intellect. That is . . .

I live in the more sophisticated, fairer society of the world. I can walk down dark alleyways, and it doesn’t really bother me. My girlfriend, and many girls I know, are not so anxious. Why?

[surreptitious75]

Feminism is very deeply divided at the moment over the trans issue
The question is over whether or not a trans woman is also a woman

I refuse to adopt a dogmatic position on this but if you have a cock and balls between your legs then you are a man
Yet this statement would get me labelled a transphobe when all I am doing is stating biological fact and nothing else

I have zero problem with how anyone self identifies or what pronouns they prefer but denying reality is another thing entirely
I cannot accept you are a woman when you have something other than a cunt between your legs as that makes no sense at all

I am very interested in the debate within the feminist community about this issue even though I am not a feminist or a woman or trans
The three main areas of contention are public toilets and professional sports and prisons as they all involve enforced gender segregation

There is so much hate between the two sides and unfortunately it doesnt seem there is any solution to either that or the actual problems themselves
Two binary positions that are as opposite each other as it is possible to be with no room for compromise from either side now or probably never at all

[Ecmandu]

This is my take on non-binary people.

For one, they are almost 100% male transvestites (cross dressers)

Now! Here’s the deal! When a female walks down the street with a sheer top with no bra and admonishes people who look a her boobs as “perverts”, she’s fucked in the head. Even gay men will look at her boobs!

When you have a dude wearing a dress who calls anyone who notices that it’s a dude wearing a dress a “homophobe” “transphobe” or “asshole”, you’re dealing with a “narcissistic attention whore with no self worth”. Everyone with a brain is going to notice that you are a dude wearing a dress.

In the age of trump, narcissism is the law.

What’s funny to me is that they all hate trump.

This is called classic projection: you love what you see of yourself in others and hate what you see of yourself in others (if they are negative qualities).

What I hate most about these people is that “they hate labels”. Well fuck you! Labels cause this thing called ACCOUNTABILITY! If you don’t exist, you can hate everyone (or “dodge”) anyone who judges you in any way shape or form.

And that a post modernist asshole.

The other thing post modernist asshole say is that “words are just words talking about words and don’t refer to anything but words”

There are so many fucked up people on ILP, and in the world at large, and all they care about is not being judged.

And to all these people, I make a very simple statement: judge me with all of your might!

[Tab]

There are so many fucked up people on ILP.

There’s only about 10 people here. We can’t all be mad.

[Ecmandu]

@Tab

There are so many fucked up people on ILP.

There’s only about 10 people here. We can’t all be mad.

I think there are a lot of die hard netzschians here, who come and go, and I consider them all post modernists … “words are just words only talking about words… the only thing that matters is domination… if you dominate, you can say whatever the fuck you want, not only that, you can do whatever the fuck you want”. Trump anyone? Is it any wonder why the majority of posters since trump have been trumpers!?!

I hate these fucking pricks.